We are starting a new project based on EJB 3.0. I have a "spring" based background (and love it), so for me loose coupling and testability is a big must have. This post should not be about "ejb vs. spring". It would be perfect if you already have real project experience with this.
here is some example code to demonstrate the problem:
client -> ejb -> collaborator 1 -> collaborator .. -> collaborator n
<!-- language: java -->
#Stateless
public class SampleService {
// or #Inject via CDI
// or #Autowired via Spring
#EJB // or just use a stateless session bean via EJB 3.0
private Bank bank;
// same for this component
#EJB
private Calculator calc;
// both collaborators must be settable from outside, to make everything testable (and mockable)
/**
* sample "business service" called from client
*/
public void debit(BigDecimal amount){
calc.calculate(amount.subtract(new BigDecimal(100)));
bank.debit(amount);
}
}
// or via #Component (Spring), or CDI?
#Stateless // or Stateless Session bean with optional #Service/#Singleton annotation?
public class Calculator {
public void calculate(BigDecimal subtract) {
// calculate stuff....
}
}
// or via #Component (Spring), or CDI?
#Stateless // or Stateless Session bean with optional #Service/#Singleton annotation?
public class Bank {
public void debit(BigDecimal amount) {
// ...
}
}
i want to know what is the best way to implement dependency injection for all the collaborators and their collaborators in ejb 3.0? collaborators in this sense can be very very small dedicated classes.
we have discussed the the following options so far and like always don't have a proper conclusion yet :)
only use the ejb standard with everything beeing a stateless session bean and all consequences (like pooling, resource handling etc.)
use stateless session beans as "business components" (entry points) and from there on
a) spring wired dependencies (via "jboss snowdrop" integration)
b) CDI wired dependencies (via WELD for ejb 3.0 and jboss eap 5.1)
i don't need to know how i can use the beans in a unit test. the answer i am after is what is the best approach to wire up all the dependencies inside the running appserver (spring vs. guice vs. CDI vs. EJB). i only need to know the graph from the outer EJB ("business entry point") downwards. so everything outside (servlets, frontend etc.) is not scope of this question :)
please, assume EJB 3.0 and jboss eap 5.1 are set for the project :)
looking forward to your answers and hopefully some project based knowledge.
If you need method level transaction management, security, concurrency management or any other services that a session bean can offer then make them EJB session beans. You can start out with managed beans and then make them session beans as and when you need to.
If you want to inject these session beans into managed beans (which in CDI is anything in a jar file that contains a beans.xml file in the meta-inf directory) then use #EJB. If you want to inject a plain managed bean into a session bean use #Inject.
If you want to inject remote session beans (or any Java EE remote resource) then this link explains how you can do this via an adapter class. Essentially it keeps all of your nasty strings for lookups etc in one place and allows you then to treat these remote resources just like any other injectable bean (via the #Produces annotation on the adapter member variables). You don't have to do this but it is recommended.
Typesafe resource injection
I would definitely vote against mixing frameworks.
I'm working on a project that is hooked on EJB, Spring and JBoss Seam (and also has half-Flex, half-JSF front-end). A true technology zoo!
Anyway, wiring it all together is not the worst part, those frameworks have flexible injection capabilities. Testing is also more or less bearable.
The most painful was to get rid of memory leaks caused by different lifecylce models, synchronize transaction, and clean up threading behavior.
Now we're moving to pure Java EE 6 (getting rid of Spring, Flex and shifting from Seam to CDI). So far we're really pleased with the results.
BTW, I'm not criticizing Spring. Stick with either Java EE or Spring stack, mixing them is just asking for trouble.
Well in general in Java there are "too many choices," so certainly in this area as well. I would not describe EJB as a general purpose Dependency Injection framework, rather they use DI for their purposes. If that is how you want to code, you should look to add a framework for this purpose. If you know and like Spring, go for it. I have used Guice with EJB's (here is a nice cookbook) to good effect as well, if you needed yet another framework to figure out how to do this.
If your main goal is to allow dependency injection for testing I would recommend just letting those values be settable via changing them to protected or giving them setters. I'm a fan of using Mockito to stub everything in Java EE EJB 3.0 and when doing any testing outside of integration testing to just allow Mockito to stub the methods for me, but if you are looking for full dependency injection like the capability to have several different beans based off of the same class, but with different dependencies I would recommend as Yishai said and going with Spring on top.
Related
I’m taking this udemy course all about Spring Hibernate etc. The course started with explaining how Injection of Control and dependency injection works not in a web perspective just like having simple classes or beans, defining beans and their dependencies inside a config xml file or inside the actual class Using java annotation and then a main class where the beans are created. I understood that despite not really seeing the big benefit of using IoC and DI other than separating roles like creating and maintaining objects and adding dependencies the object needs and I guess when the project is bigger this makes it cleaner and easier to follow right?
However what I don’t understand is how IOC and DI ties in a full spring MVC project. Like I understand using the #Controller annotation means it’s like an #Component and you could make it scan the components automatically when it creates beans but like unlike before there isn’t a main class where beans are created and configured rather I have a controller class where I manually create objects and models and pass that back to the views where I can use the values in the model. I don’t see how I use IoC or DI here? Or is it because it’s a simple project and perhaps the objects we created didn’t have many dependencies?Or are a lot of the uses and implementation done internally or automatically?
I am just struggling to a) see why IoC and DI are that important and b) how are they actually used in a Spring MVC project where you don’t have a main class where you do create beans.
A) Create a project, but don't add any dependency (or web-mvc). Then do it yourself then see how much need time to create configure manually. If it is just a simple mvc project, you can do it manually, but if your project increase day by day then a huge configuration file to maintain your project properly. But when you are professional developer, you don't have so much time to configure all those manually. So here is come the solution IoC and DI. Controller or other anotation are configured in build-in jars. You don't have to worried about to create controller or to create bean, just use them when you neer them. It's save your time as well as headache about is it working or not. It's increase your productivity while your are working on a big project.
B) Yes, there is no main class in web project. To run a web project, you need a server. The server first looking for a configuration (In spring, it's web.xml, dispatcher-servlet). If it available then expand the configuration file, if not then throw an error. In that configuration file, explain everything about the web project. What should do, what is not mandatory, what is entry point etc.
So, IoC and DI are very important because to understand how a web project work behind the scene or how all component work together.
IoC is a process whereby objects define their dependencies, that is, the other objects they work with, only through constructor arguments, arguments to a factory method, or properties that are set on the object instance after it is constructed or returned from a factory method. The container then injects those dependencies when it creates the bean. This process is fundamentally the inverse, hence the name Inversion of Control (IoC), of the bean itself controlling the instantiation or location of its dependencies by using direct construction of classes, or a mechanism such as the Service Locator pattern.
In Spring, the objects that form the backbone of your application and that are managed by the Spring IoC container are called beans. A bean is an object that is instantiated, assembled, and otherwise managed by a Spring IoC container. Otherwise, a bean is simply one of many objects in your application.
The advantages of this architecture are:
decoupling the execution of a task from its implementation
making it easier to switch between different implementations
greater modularity of a program
greater ease in testing a program by isolating a component or mocking its dependencies and allowing components to communicate through contracts
Inversion of Control can be achieved through various mechanisms such as: Strategy design pattern, Service Locator pattern, Factory pattern, and Dependency Injection (DI).
You can go with Annotation based configuration, where you can define #Configuration class and return the required beans using #Bean annotation.
Also you can use #Component to your POJO class to treat it as Spring bean.
I am new to Spring Boot and still trying to grasp best practices. What attracted me was Spring Cloud Configuration. Initially I wanted to do a hybrid implementation (due to the size of the existing code base) of Spring Boot but it inevitably lead me to a bunch of code smell and anti-patterns.
Before Spring, I was managing my own objects but I've quickly realized that Spring wants full control of object instantiation and ownership where there is dependency injection (which I understand). However there are some cases where I cannot let Spring completely drive but still have a dependency on configuration (e.g. another framework responsible for object management).
I don't want to do a one off scenario where I end up passing configuration through a chain of constructors and I want to avoid using AutowireCapableBeanFactory::autoWireBean(...) to manually wire my beans. At the same time, relying on Spring to manually initialize all my objects is a nuisance. To be clear, this is what I am talking about:
#SomeOtherFrameworkThatOwnsThisObject
#Configuration
public class SomeClassDeepInMyProject implements SomeKindOfInterface {
#Autowired
private ConfigurationController config;
...
}
I considered creating a singleton configuration provider that is accessible application wide and manually wiring the configuration bean to the class. If there is a better alternative, I am all ears.
There is lot of information about Stateless, Stateful and Sigleton beans everywhere but almost nothing about javax.annotation.ManagedBean. At a first look I assumed that It's be similar to Spring's #Component but I can't use it without complete information.
If I annotate a class with #javax.annotation.ManagedBean will it be singleton or it will have instance pool like stateless?
Will the methods inside such class be concurrent? I should make sure as in a singleton they are synchronized by default.
I was thinking of annotating my DAO class with this but the #javax.enterprise.context.*; scopes put me doubt. I think #Stateless will be better. Any comments?
If not on DAO or service classes, where does this annotation fit in?
This answer gives very good explanation but doesn't answer the above questions.
Neither. They are per lookup/injection instances, more like stateful.
No, there is no container-managed concurrency.
(and 4.) Do you need transaction, security, or other EJB capabilities? Then #Stateless is probably better. Otherwise, I would just use CDI since it is better than the #javax.annotation.ManagedBean annotation in nearly all ways, and it is enabled by default in EE 7, so it is clearly the forward direction for EE.
As a bit of background, the #javax.annotation.ManagedBean annotation was added late in the development of the EE 6 cycle, and it is not widely used. The managed bean spec was intended to unify the lifecycle, injection, and naming behaviors of the EJB, CDI, and JSF managed bean component models. That was useful, but in my opinion, the #javax.annotation.ManagedBean annotation was just an afterthought to allow developers to access the minimal component model functionality without the overhead/complexity (real or perceived) of the other component models (EJB necessarily has a fixed set of required services and associated overhead, CDI is better in nearly all ways but is clearly more complex, and JSF managed beans are tied to WAR). However, this "common denominator" is then a quite limited component model with just #PostConstruct, #Resource (and other EE injection), and #Interceptors. There's no security, transaction, scoping/lifecycle (as in EJB or CDI), #PreDestroy, tight integration with the web tier, etc.
I'm a little confused by the mixed use of JSF2+Spring+EJB3 or any combination of those. I know one of the Spring principal characteristics is dependency injection, but with JSF managed beans I can use #ManagedBean and #ManagedProperty anotations and I get dependency injection functionality. With EJB3 I'm even more confused about when to use it along with JSF or if there is even a reason to use it.
So, in what kind of situation would it be a good idea to use Spring+JSF2 or EJB3+JSF2?
Until now I have created just some small web applications using only JSF2 and never needed to use Spring or EJB3. However, I'm seeing in a lot of places that people are working with all this stuff together.
First of all, Spring and EJB(+JTA) are competing technologies and usually not to be used together in the same application. Choose the one or the other. Spring or EJB(+JTA). I won't tell you which to choose, I will only tell you a bit of history and the facts so that you can easier make the decision.
Main problem they're trying to solve is providing a business service layer API with automatic transaction management. Imagine that you need to fire multiple SQL queries to perform a single business task (e.g. placing an order), and one of them failed, then you would of course like that everything is rolled back, so that the DB is kept in the same state as it was before, as if completely nothing happened. If you didn't make use of transactions, then the DB would be left in an invalid state because the first bunch of the queries actually succeeded.
If you're familiar with basic JDBC, then you should know that this can be achieved by turning off autocommit on the connection, then firing those queries in sequence, then performing commit() in the very same try in whose catch (SQLException) a rollback() is performed. This is however quite tedious to implement everytime.
With Spring and EJB(+JTA), a single (stateless) business service method call counts by default transparently as a single full transaction. This way you don't need to worry about transaction management at all. You do not need to manually create EntityManagerFactory, nor explicitly call em.getTransaction().begin() and such as you would do when you're tight-coupling business service logic into a JSF backing bean class and/or are using RESOURCE_LOCAL instead of JTA in JPA. You could for example have just the following EJB class utilizing JPA:
#Stateless
public class OrderService {
#PersistenceContext
private EntityManager em;
#EJB
private ProductService productService;
public void placeOrder(Order newOrder) {
for (Product orderedproduct : newOrder.getProducts()) {
productService.updateQuantity(orderedproduct);
}
em.persist(newOrder);
}
}
If you have a #EJB private OrderService orderService; in your JSF backing bean and invoke the orderService.placeOrder(newOrder); in the action method, then a single full transaction will be performed. If for example one of the updateQuantity() calls or the persist() call failed with an exception, then it will rollback any so far executed updateQuantity() calls, and leave the DB in a clean and crisp state. Of course, you could catch that exception in your JSF backing bean and display a faces message or so.
Noted should be that "Spring" is a quite large framework which not only competes EJB, but also CDI and JPA. Previously, during the dark J2EE ages, when EJB 2.x was extremely terrible to implement (the above EJB 3.x OrderService example would in EJB 2.x require at least 5 times more code and some XML code). Spring offered a much better alternative which required less Java code (but still many XML code). J2EE/EJB2 learned the lessons from Spring and came with Java EE 5 which offers new EJB3 API which is even more slick than Spring and required no XML at all.
Spring also offers IoC/DI (inversion of control; dependency injection) out the box. This was during the J2EE era configured by XML which can go quite overboard. Nowadays Spring also uses annotations, but still some XML is required. Since Java EE 6, after having learned the lessons from Spring, CDI is offered out the box to provide the same DI functionality, but then without any need for XML. With Spring DI #Component/#Autowired and CDI #Named/#Inject you can achieve the same as JSF does with #ManagedBean/#ManagedProperty, but Spring DI and CDI offers many more advantages around it: you can for example write interceptors to pre-process or post-process managed bean creation/destroy or a managed bean method call, you can create custom scopes, producers and consumers, you can inject an instance of narrower scope in an instance of broader scope, etc.
Spring also offers MVC which essentially competes JSF. It makes no sense to mix JSF with Spring MVC. Further Spring also offers Data which is essentially an extra abstraction layer over JPA, further minimizing DAO boilerplate (but which essentially doesn't represent the business service layer as whole).
See also:
What exactly is Java EE?
JSF Controller, Service and DAO
#Stateless beans versus #Stateful beans
There's no real easy answer here as Spring is many things.
On a really high level, Spring competes with Java EE, meaning you would use either one of them as a full stack framework.
On a finer grained level, the Spring IoC container and Spring Beans compete with the combination of CDI & EJB in Java EE.
As for the web layer, Spring MVC competes with JSF. Some Spring xyzTemplate competes with the JPA interfaces (both can use eg Hibernate as the implementation of those).
It's possible to mix and match; eg use CDI & EJB beans with Spring MVC, OR use Spring Beans with JSF.
You will normally not use 2 directly competing techs together. Spring beans + CDI + EJB in the same app, or Spring MVC + JSF is silly.
I'm looking at this java web application that is using hibernate, jsp's, and spring framework. (from what I can tell!)
the file layout is like this:
classes/com/example/project1
inside project1
/dao
_entity_Dao.java
/dao/hibernate/
_entity_DaoHibernate.java
/factory
DaoFactory.java
DaoFactoryImpl.java
/managers
_entity_Manager.java
/managers/impl
_entity_ManagerImpl.java
/model
_entity_.java
/service
_xxxx_Service.java
/service/impl/
_xxxx_ServiceImpl.java
Have you guys read about this sort of layout somewhere? Is it considered best-practice?
What is the difference between a Factory and a Manager and a Service? (high level)
For typical layout of an application built with Spring I'd look at the example web applications that ship with it (meaning Spring).
Using things like DaoFactory is definitely not be a best-practice, the Daos should get injected instead. In general you should not need factories with Spring except for some unusual cases. Injecting is done when the web application starts up, spring reads the configuration information and constructs all the objects and plugs them in according to configuration xml and/or annotations (this is assuming singleton-scope for your objects, which is usual for stateless things like daos and services, things scoped as prototypes get new copies created as the application asks for them).
In Spring applications a service is similar to a Stateless Session Bean, it is a transactional layer encompassing application logic for a use case. So if your user takes an action that has the effect of causing several different tables to get updated you can inject the daos into that service, have a method on that service do the updates on the daos, and configure Spring to wrap that service in a proxy that makes that method transactional.
I've seen manager used as another name for what I described as service. Here I don't know what they're doing with it.
I don't like the idea of combining your interfaces and impls in one project. Just because you want to consume the interface doesn't mean you want to consume the impl and it's cumbersome transitive dependencies. The main reason is because there will be more than one impl (hypothetically, i.e. JPA/JDBC/Hibernate, or Axis2/CXF, etc.). The interfaces should not be bound to the implementation, otherwise the point is lost. This also allows for easy dependency injection as the impls simply reside on the classpath, then something like a Proxy or Spring (e.g.) can inject the implementations.
In all likelihood, all you need is a:
Interface Project
dao
EntityDao
types
Entity
HibernateImpl Project
dao
EntityHibernateDao
src/main/resources/
EntityMapping.cfg.xml